1 / 24

Cosmic Connection between Black Hole Growth and Galaxy Evolution

Cosmic Connection between Black Hole Growth and Galaxy Evolution. Jong-Hak Woo UCLA. Local Scaling Relations. M BH -  relation (Ferraresse et al. 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000). M BH – L spheroid relation (Magorrian et al. 1998; Marconi & Hunt 2003). Log M BH. Log M BH.

carlow
Download Presentation

Cosmic Connection between Black Hole Growth and Galaxy Evolution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cosmic Connection between Black Hole Growth and Galaxy Evolution Jong-Hak Woo UCLA

  2. Local Scaling Relations MBH-  relation (Ferraresse et al. 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000) MBH – Lspheroid relation (Magorrian et al. 1998; Marconi & Hunt 2003) Log M BH Log M BH Marconi & Hunt (2003) Tremaine et al. (2002) Dispersion () km/s Log Lspheroid K

  3. An Open Question: origin of scaling relations • When did scaling relations form? Do they evolve? • Theoretical Predictions: • No evolution? (Haehnelt & Kauffmann 2000) • Galaxy grows first? (Robertson et al. 2005) • BH grows first ? (Croton 2006; Bower et al. 2006; Somerville et al. 2008) • Core issues: • BH growth faster than bulge growth? Or synchronized? • transforming stellar disk to spheroid component

  4. Determining Black Hole Mass Cannot resolvethe sphere of influence for SMBHs beyond ~20Mpc! Solution: Active galaxies with broad-lines 1) Velocity: from width of broad lines 2) Broad-line region size (RBLR): from either Reverberation time scale (light echo) between accretion disk and BLR or Continuum luminositybased on the empirical size-luminosity relation (Kaspi et al. 2005; Bentz et al. 2006). MBH ~ RBLR V2 /G

  5. EmpiricallyCalibrated Photo-Ionization Method How to estimate BLR size • The flux needed to ionize the broad line region scales as L/r2. • An empirical correlation is found, calibrated using reverberation mapping BLR size (lt-days) L(5100A) (erg/s) Kaspi et al. 2005

  6. Cosmic evolution of MBH-  & MBH-Lspheroid relations Collaborators: Tommaso Treu (UCSB), Matt Malkan (UCLA), & Roger Blandford (Stanford) Sample selection • 2 redshift windows: z=0.360.01 and z=0.570.01to avoid sky lines • samples: 35 objects at z=0.36 & 15 objects at z=0.57, selected from SDSS, based on broad H • Observations • z=0.36, initial sample: 20 objects with Keck spectra & HST ACS images • lower MBH sample:15 objects with Keck spectra & HST NICMOS • z=0.57: Keck spectra for 15 objects; sigma measured for 5 • HST NICMOS; 6 obtained so far

  7. z=0.36 sample Measuring velocity dispersion Estimating MBHMBH ~ RBLR V2 /G z=0.57 sample

  8. MBH - sigma at z~0: quiescent vs. Seyfert galaxies AGNs seem to follow the same M-sigma relation on average, but with shallower slope and larger scatter Reverberation sample: Velocity dispersion from Onken et al. 2004 SDSS sample: Velocity dispersion from Greene et al. 2007 Woo et al. 2008

  9. Scaling Relation at z~0.4 & 0.6 Distant bulges are smaller/less luminous than local bulges at fixed MBH Dispersion () km/s Log Lspheroid B Treu et al. 2007 Woo et al. 2006, 2008

  10. Evolution of MBH - sigma Relation? z=0.36 sample Δlog MBH = 0.54±0.12±0.21 z=0.57 sample Δlog MBH = 0.50±0.22±0.21 Woo et al. 2008

  11. Mass-dependent Evolution? More massive galaxies show smaller offset Downsizing of scaling relation? Woo & Treu 2009

  12. Mass-dependent Evolution? Log M BH At z~2, most massive objects are offset from the local relation Log Lspheroid B Peng et al. 2006

  13. Recent evolution of (active) bulges? z~0.36 sample (Treu et al. 2007)

  14. Recent evolution of (active) bulges? NICMOS images of lower MBH sample at z~0.36 (Bennert et al. 2009) NICMOS images of z~0.57 sample

  15. Mass-dependent Evolution? More massive galaxies show smaller offset Lower MBH sample will be crucial to determine the mass-dependency

  16. What about MBH – sigma relation of AGNs at z~0? MBH-sigma relation is defined with low-mass, low-luminosity Seyferts Lack of high MBHAGNs due to the difficulty of sigma measurements sigma of PG quasars can be measured in H band (using Keck AO+OSIRIS)

  17. What about MBH – sigma relation of AGNs at z~0? MBH-sigma relation is defined with low-mass, low-luminosity Seyferts Lack of high MBHAGNs due to the difficulty of sigma measurements sigma of PG quasars can be measured in H band (using Keck AO+OSIRIS) Watson et al. 2008 Gemini NIFS data

  18. What about MBH – sigma relation of AGNs at z~0? MBH-sigma relation is defined with low-mass, low-luminosity Seyferts Lack of high MBHAGNs due to the difficulty of sigma measurements sigma of PG quasars can be measured in H band (using Keck AO+OSIRIS)

  19. LAMP (Lick AGN Monitoring Project) PI: Aaron Barth (UC Irvine) CoI: N. Bennert (UCSB), M. Bentz (UCI), G. Canalizo (UCR), J. Greene (Princeton), M. Malkan (UCLA), A. Filippenko (UCB), E. Gates (UCSC), D. Stern (JPL), Tommaso Treu (UCSB), J.-H. Woo (UCLA) • Motivation • To increase the reverberation sample size, at low mass scale • To better determine the size-luminosity relation (led by M. Bentz) • To study M-sigma relation at low mass scale (led by J.-H. Woo) • Sample 12 local Seyfert galaxies with low BH mass • Observation 65 nights at Lick (spectroscopy) and at ~1-m telescopes (photometry) • Results Bentz et al. (2008), Woo et al. (2009 in prep.) etc

  20. Conclusions • For given MBH, bulges at z~0.36 & 0.57 appear to be smaller/less luminous compared to the local sample. • Selection effects: possibly in the local relationship; mass-dependency, AGN vs. quiescent galaxies, spirals vs. bulge dominated systems? • BH growth predates final assembly of spheroid at intermediate mass scale • AGN M-sigma relation at z~0 with near-IR spectroscopy and new reverberation masses will lead us to better understanding of origin of scaling relation.

  21. Observational limitations at distant universe Solution: Active galaxies with broad emission lines 1) Reverberation mapping(Blandford & McKee 1982) 2) Empirical size-luminosity relation, based on reverberation sample(Wandel et al. 1999; Kaspi et al. 2005). 1) Black hole mass: CANNOT resolve the sphere of influence (1” at z=1 is ~8 kpc) 2) Velocity dispersion: CANNOT avoid AGN continuum Solution: Seyfert 1 galaxies integrated spectra have enough starlight to measure  on the featureless AGN continuum. 3) Spheroid luminosity: high spatial resolution required Solution: HST imaging

  22. How to measure BLR size reverberation mapping by measuring time lag (light echo) between accretion disk and BLR (Blandford & McKee 1982) • Reverberation mapping requires along term monitoring! Continuum Light curves of NGC 5548 Emission line flux variation lags by ~20 days Emission line Peterson et al. 2004

  23. Recent evolution of (active) bulges? lower MBH sample at z~0.36 (Bennert et al. 2008)

  24. Interpretation 1) Systematic errors? Stellar contamination,aperture correction, inclination overall systematic errors: Δlog MBH = 0.21 dex, smaller than offsetΔlog MBH ~ 0.50 dex • 2) Selection effects? • Monte Carlo simulation shows selection effect ~0.1dex. • Difference in active and quiescent galaxies? • Scaling relation not tight for late-type galaxies? • Mass-dependant evolution? 3) Cosmic evolution? BH growth predates bulge assembly. These bulges have to grow significantly to arrive in the scaling relations at z=0

More Related